Privatization.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

A Discussion about the Privatization of various traditional Governmental responsibilities

Well, title says it. After reading recent topic it came to my attention that some people still think privatization improves things like hospitals, prisons, and sciences.

I'm here to prove all those people wrong because I am way smarter than all those stupid people who thinks the things I just cleverly ridiculed are actually good, because they arent.

Arguement against privatization of Prisons: When a prison is paid per prisoner they will have an interest in having 'more' prisoners. Whereas soceity has an interest in having less prisoners. In a recent example it was exposed that various immigrancy bills which would put illegal immigrants in prison in a certain country with privatized prisons originated with the owners of said prisons, and not the actual people whom are supposed to make said law.

Arguement against privatization of Healthcare: When you earn your money from people dying or being sick, you sure as hell have an interest in prolonging the ammount of time they pay you, and how many people are in need of your treatments. Soceity wants less sick/dying people, but private hospitals have a general interest in having more of them.

Arguement against privatization of Sciences: This is more complicated, but it mostly boils down to the largest donations to colleges which study alternative energy-sources are given by various corporations like BP whom 'live' off of fossile fuels, with requirements that essentialy boil down to various projects having to be approved by a comittee selected by the company whom gave the donation in the first place. Which destroys the idea's in the firstplace, these donations often being tax deducted, would if being used as governmental grants eliminate the bias of the corporations. Soceity has an interest in less CO2 emissions, not more. However since these are people whom live off of selling/distributing the things that this research would lend obsolete give the most donations towards what would clearly be their own demise, it is clear that they are probably gonna have alternative motives.

Same with the medicine and all other things often funded by people with no interest in improvements.

Arguement against privatization of the Military: Quite simple, mercenaries cannot be held to the same standards of our own Military. As such the murderers of innocents in foreign countries often go entirely unpunished(Beyond being fired) Soceity most likely has an interest in the foreign nations they invade not seeing them as even bigger assholes than they already do, soldiers of fortune rarely improve a nations image.

________________________

First part of the thread was ofcourse satirical in nature, although my position on the subject is still rather obvious. I'd like to state that I mean no ill towards the ones whom would love to see everything privatized (Too lazy to buy a ticket to wherever they live and hunt them down)

I thought it's been a bit of time since we last had this talk, I seem to remember it was a thread about Ron Paul back then. I thought we could have a small discussion about the subject in its purity, Privatization of something which is often seen as the governments responsibility (Health, Law, Science, and Military)

TLDR: Discussion about Privatization

Privatization is usually a solution in search of a problem. Private companies are not inherently better, or more efficient, or cheaper or even less corrupt than government organisations. They only appear that way sometimes because private companies mostly operate in a field with competing companies, forcing them to be more efficient etc. or lose the race. While government organisations sometimes operate as monopolies which allows them to get away with inefficiencies, corruption etc. they'd never get away with if they had competition. But all the purported benefits of privatizing government organisations and property can be had much better by simply opening the market to competing bids, instead of selling them off or privatizing them.
Oh and there's also no inherent reason why high-level employees of government organisations can't be paid based on performance just as corporate manages, no need to privatize anything for that.

That being said, there are also services and products which are natural monopolies. History teaches us that leaving those in the hands of private organizations has been even worse than leaving them in the hands of a government monopoly. Those services and products need to either be strongly regulated to change their monopolistic nature (as is the case with phone/internet connections) or need to stay in the hands of the government. (as is, at least usually, the case with public utilities)

I tend to lean towards socialism with my politics, but it's stupid to dismiss privatisation out of hand, as it's clearly very good at driving down the prices of some services without damaging the quality too much. The space industry is a really good example of this, private companies are delivering shuttles that should be an order of magnitude less than anything NASA can provide, allowing greater exploration & experimentation with the same amount of cash.

The state should always offer a service for industries that are required for a basic standard of living like water & energy, in my opinion. That doesn't necessarily stop private companies from creating competing services but also means there will always be something there, for everyone. Sort of like the BBC model, but for water, energy, and transport.

As others have pointed out, the franchising system is really open to abuse & leads to monopolies. They need either really fierce regulation or nationalisation.

Nikolaz72:
Arguement against privatization of Prisons: When a prison is paid per prisoner they will have an interest in having 'more' prisoners. Whereas soceity has an interest in having less prisoners. In a recent example it was exposed that various immigrancy bills which would put illegal immigrants in prison in a certain country with privatized prisons originated with the owners of said prisons, and not the actual people whom are supposed to make said law.

I know you said the first part of your post was meant to be satirical, but I'd probably find it funnier if this kind of corruption didn't happen pretty much every time prisons have been privatized.

Esotera:
The space industry is a really good example of this, private companies are delivering shuttles that should be an order of magnitude less than anything NASA can provide, allowing greater exploration & experimentation with the same amount of cash.

What does that have to do with privatization? The private space industry is delivering cheaper space-flight because they're investing a lot of research into making space-flight cheaper, while government aerospace organisations aren't. (at least not to the same degree) That's like saying Coca-Cola is better at producing soft-drinks than the municipal water company because Coca-Cola is private. No, they're producing soft drinks because that's what they chose to do and the city/county is producing tap water because that's what they chose to do.

The state should always offer a service for industries that are required for a basic standard of living like water & energy, in my opinion. That doesn't necessarily stop private companies from creating competing services but also means there will always be something there, for everyone. Sort of like the BBC model, but for water, energy, and transport.

Yep, there are quite a few examples of public utilities like water supply or public transportation being privatized. It almost never ends up being good for the customer in long or even intermediate run. A very common trend is that such a service gets privatized, the company massively reduces their running expenses to both turn a tidy profit and offer cheaper goods/services as promised, and a few years on, the reduction in maintenance funds, training programs and similar long-term costs leads to collapse in quality or outright supply, leaving the government to bail them out.
Which is really the problem with privatizing any vital service. The free market only works if you can allow incompetent companies to collapse, so a better competitor can come in an grab the market segment, leading to customers their service/goods from the best available supplier. But that doesn't work for, for example, electricity. You can't have a power company collapse and leave the people sitting in the literal dark for a couple of years until some more efficient company has built better power plants and can supply them again. And because you can't allow the weakest competitors to fail, you can't have competition at all. (Not to mention that it's also a natural monopoly. You don't need two competing power-plants where one will do, just as you can't have several competing roads or competing phone networks)

Nikolaz72:
(Health, Law, Science, and Military)

Since when was Science the responsibility of the state?

Sure, the state arguably does more for science than anything else (funding, the military etc...), but I wouldn't say it's the job of the state to do science.

Danny Ocean:
Since when was Science the responsibility of the state?

Sure, the state arguably does more for science than anything else (funding, the military etc...), but I wouldn't say it's the job of the state to do science.

Universities with government funding do most of the scientific research necessary for society but is not obviously profitable. Then there's massive projects such as the Hadron colliders which no corporation or organization has the capacity or willingness to build.

Particularly in modern setting where a combination of necessary resources and safety rules, pure scientific research (research done for understanding rather than development) simply must be done via government research organizations.

I'd also toss in weapon manufacturing and insurance (although that could be done via publicly-chartered non-profit organizations as well). There's some things you don't want to have a profit motive and selling weapons or paying out damage claims are the purest form of it.

McKitten:
Private companies are not inherently better, or more efficient, or cheaper or even less corrupt than government organisations. They only appear that way sometimes because private companies mostly operate in a field with competing companies, forcing them to be more efficient etc. or lose the race.

Everything you said there is one big contradiction. You claim companies aren't better at the things that they do, but then you claim that competing companies force them to be better. You basically admitted that private companies do things better so long as competition exists between them, thus proving your claim that companies don't do things better wrong. Competition is what makes private enties do things better, unlike the state which doesn't have to care about others competing with it.

McKitten:
But all the purported benefits of privatizing government organisations and property can be had much better by simply opening the market to competing bids, instead of selling them off or privatizing them.

Further explaination is needed here.

McKitten:

Oh and there's also no inherent reason why high-level employees of government organisations can't be paid based on performance just as corporate manages, no need to privatize anything for that.

And who is going to decide when the government workers do their job well enough to deserve extra reward? The government? The people in the government who hired them? Why should they give a shit? The reason for why workers in the private sector are rewarded for effort isn't only because they do their job well, its because the people who hired them have an actual reason to care about how well their workers do, and thus reward them for their job to insure that they contine to work hard and well. A person working for the government has no personal stake in the state run enterprize, and thus has little reason to care about how well his workers do, and thus little reason to go out of his way to reward people for effort.

In fact, I would even go as far as claiming that they would probably just abuse their position to reward them self's and his friends/workers lots of shit simply because they could get away with it, since they aren't spending their own money anyways and lose nothing by doing it.

Vivi22:

Nikolaz72:
Arguement against privatization of Prisons: When a prison is paid per prisoner they will have an interest in having 'more' prisoners. Whereas soceity has an interest in having less prisoners. In a recent example it was exposed that various immigrancy bills which would put illegal immigrants in prison in a certain country with privatized prisons originated with the owners of said prisons, and not the actual people whom are supposed to make said law.

I know you said the first part of your post was meant to be satirical, but I'd probably find it funnier if this kind of corruption didn't happen pretty much every time prisons have been privatized.

You misunderstand, the points are my opinion. The satire was calling the opposition stupid without giving them a chance to speak up.

My view is that anything essential should be held in government hands as much as possible. Social housing, utilities, public services and maybe even some degree food supplies should be controlled/funded through public bodies as I find it reprehensible that companies like British gas hike up prices by almost 20% due to 'increased running costs' and yet be publishing profits of over a billion pounds. When pensioners are freezing to death in their homes because they have to choose between food and warmth something seriously needs to change.

No problem with private companies controlling luxury goods but there's some things that the rush for higher profits shouldn't be involved.

I think this entirely depends on the people involved. If you have a corrupt irresponsible government that can be very bad, as all government really is IS the people who are running it. If they have good/ bad intentions or implementation it will only be as good or bad as they make it. I would rather see most things run by nonprofits, as they are not seeking wealth and power as most politicians are. Wealth and power tends to be a magnet for people with not the most honest of intentions. Ideally important matters would be handled by those who are not seeking either. Just as I lean towards organizations like Doctors without borders and medical charities because they can do much more for much less and are not in it for personal gain. Now as for the question of funding the nonprofits, that I think could be assisted by taxes, and charity rather than one the another. Utilizing all methods we have available is better than restricting the funding to either taxes or charity. The problems arise when one can gain wealth or power from doing so, and as long as that is part of the equation, you will have the problems that come with it regardless of if it is government or privatized.

I'm a huge fan of privatization on most things, because when competition works, it works well. The sectors that most people hate (communications, energy, etc...) are that way because the government has allowed non-competitive practices to run rampant for whatever reasons.

I feel the government should threaten socialization and other drastic measures as a means to hold monopolies accountable, but that's just because they need to bust heads a bit. I'm over here on my piss poor connection because the cable companies have illegally divided up my city into service regions rather than competing with each other. Not cool capitalism, not cool at all.

Hardcore_gamer:
Everything you said there is one big contradiction. You claim companies aren't better at the things that they do, but then you claim that competing companies force them to be better. You basically admitted that private companies do things better so long as competition exists between them, thus proving your claim that companies don't do things better wrong. Competition is what makes private enties do things better, unlike the state which doesn't have to care about others competing with it.

There is nothing contradictory. Competition and privatization are two completely separate things. Private companies can have monopolies. Government organisations can compete on an open market. There is nothing about being private that makes a company more efficient than one not being private, which is why i said that private companies are not inherently better than government companies. Which is why privatization is not a solution to any problem. If you have a government company that's inefficiently run and can get away with it because it has a monopoly and then turn that into a private monopoly, you've only made things worse. If instead you simply break up the monopoly and offer other companies to compete, the government owned company will be forced to clean up its act, or be replaced by one that actually does a better job.

Further explaination is needed here.

What don't you understand?

And who is going to decide when the government workers do their job well enough to deserve extra reward? The government? The people in the government who hired them? Why should they give a shit? The reason for why workers in the private sector are rewarded for effort isn't only because they do their job well, its because the people who hired them have an actual reason to care about how well their workers do, and thus reward them for their job to insure that they contine to work hard and well. A person working for the government has no personal stake in the state run enterprize, and thus has little reason to care about how well his workers do, and thus little reason to go out of his way to reward people for effort.

The funny thing about money is that you can count it. It's pretty easy to whether a company is performing well or not.
That aside, people in the government are responsible to the people who elected them. They can be prosecuted for abuse of office if they do an intentionally bad job, or be thrown out at the next election if they're just incompetent (or be fired by people who'd be thrown out in the next election). As for anyone not of the highest rank, you think some low-level cubicle farm worker in a private corporation really gives a shit about how the hole company is performing or is seeing any direct impact between his job performance and whatever ends up with the customer?
And then there's also plenty of services and products which are simply required for the good of all society. Roads are not supposed to be profitable, and schools are not supposed to be profitable, which is the reason why privatizing those always ends in a bloody disaster. But society as a whole benefits from having them, the monetary profit is just too spread out to be collected any other way than through taxes. How do you bill an employers for the money he saves because a he doesn't have to teach his employees how to read&write since a public school took care of that?
And then there's stuff like health services, where profit is actually counter-productive. But figuring out how to screw the last penny out of sick people is what a private health service provider has to do to maximize his profits. A public one can instead figure out how to best provide the necessary health services to everyone, as much as required and as cheap as possible.
Of course, all that goes against the libertarian "everything is only about me, myself and i" agenda which is all to common in current political discourse.

In fact, I would even go as far as claiming that they would probably just abuse their position to reward them self's and his friends/workers lots of shit simply because they could get away with it, since they aren't spending their own money anyways and lose nothing by doing it.

And that's different from private companies how? You think the CEOs of private companies have their own money on the line? Go ahead, give an example of where that happened in the last ten years. There's no shortage of failing companies in that time. Empirical evidence, as opposed to economic theories, shows that private corporations are more corrupt than government organizations not less. And data always trumps theory. If a theory constantly conflicts with what we can observe in reality, it doesn't mean there's a lot of freak exceptions, it means the theory is wrong.

Hardcore_gamer:

McKitten:
Private companies are not inherently better, or more efficient, or cheaper or even less corrupt than government organisations. They only appear that way sometimes because private companies mostly operate in a field with competing companies, forcing them to be more efficient etc. or lose the race.

Everything you said there is one big contradiction. You claim companies aren't better at the things that they do, but then you claim that competing companies force them to be better. You basically admitted that private companies do things better so long as competition exists between them, thus proving your claim that companies don't do things better wrong. Competition is what makes private enties do things better, unlike the state which doesn't have to care about others competing with it.

I would argue that whilst competition can lead individual companies to provide very good services, there are problems with this model which makes it unsuitable for delivering essential services. Firstly, there is an incentive for companies developing into 'niches' offering differing levels of service, and indeed it may become the case that only some niches are eventually viable, so loss of universality is a real possibility. There is also the issue that the 'evolution' model requires that businesses be allowed to fail. This can not be tolerated in an essential service as people will be left without coverage.

There are also advantages to nationalised services in these cases. As there is no profit motive services can be delivered at cost price. Services can be better coordinated through a single system. Less popular/profitable services can be subsidised by the more profitable ones (where the privatisation model would cancel them).

I never understood the argument that we should privatize things, even if they're going to be less efficient/genuinely worse then if they were in the Government's hands simply because we know a company's "motivation".

Every time there's a discussion about privatization of something important, like disaster relief services, at least one person says: "Well at least with a company, I always know that they're trying to make a profit, unlike the government" or some variation of that sentence. They treat the government like it's some anomalous blob they have no information on. The government's motivation/duties are, quite simply, to serve the people they represent, it's not like each and every action, including providing camps for people suffering from a disaster is some secret power play that will screw people over in the long run. Secondly, I don't see why it's so good that you know that a company's motivation is to make profit. So? You know they're probably going to screw you with the prices, how is that arguably better?

It's like saying you trust a man who holds a gun up to your head more than a man who appears unarmed because "at least I know the guy with the gun is threatening me."

Esotera:
The space industry is a really good example of this, private companies are delivering shuttles that should be an order of magnitude less than anything NASA can provide, allowing greater exploration & experimentation with the same amount of cash.

The question, of course, is why weren't they doing this back when NASA actually had a shuttle program? Whatever efficiencies that these private companies have stumbled upon could easily be explained by the government having paved the way with their own research and development. When you do the same thing after a competitor has already done it at least once, it is generally quite a bit easier. Exactly where are these cost-savings coming from? Is there a better rocket design, or is the rocket simply more suitable for a less ambitious task? Is the shuttle really more economical, or is it just more economy class?

Nikolaz72:
Arguement against privatization of Prisons: When a prison is paid per prisoner they will have an interest in having 'more' prisoners. Whereas soceity has an interest in having less prisoners. In a recent example it was exposed that various immigrancy bills which would put illegal immigrants in prison in a certain country with privatized prisons originated with the owners of said prisons, and not the actual people whom are supposed to make said law.

Then how about you stop allowing companies to write laws?

Also, you talked about one single type of privatization of prisons. There are other kinds. For example, at one point prisons were more or less self-sufficient. Apply that to a business and they do their best to make prisons cheap to run.

Arguement against privatization of Healthcare: When you earn your money from people dying or being sick, you sure as hell have an interest in prolonging the ammount of time they pay you, and how many people are in need of your treatments. Soceity wants less sick/dying people, but private hospitals have a general interest in having more of them.

Then change the system to such that they make money from curing people. You know, actually allow competition. The best hospitals will be the ones that treat you quickly and effectively and those will be the ones that most people go to.

Arguement against privatization of Sciences: This is more complicated, but it mostly boils down to the largest donations to colleges which study alternative energy-sources are given by various corporations like BP whom 'live' off of fossile fuels, with requirements that essentialy boil down to various projects having to be approved by a comittee selected by the company whom gave the donation in the first place. Which destroys the idea's in the firstplace, these donations often being tax deducted, would if being used as governmental grants eliminate the bias of the corporations. Soceity has an interest in less CO2 emissions, not more. However since these are people whom live off of selling/distributing the things that this research would lend obsolete give the most donations towards what would clearly be their own demise, it is clear that they are probably gonna have alternative motives.

Studies are already privatized. What you are arguing against would slow down research because no one wants to fund everything.

Arguement against privatization of the Military: Quite simple, mercenaries cannot be held to the same standards of our own Military. As such the murderers of innocents in foreign countries often go entirely unpunished(Beyond being fired) Soceity most likely has an interest in the foreign nations they invade not seeing them as even bigger assholes than they already do, soldiers of fortune rarely improve a nations image.

First of all, a mercenary group under contract to a government would be responsible to said government and could be held to any standards that the government wants.

Second of all, mercenaries are very much needed in today's world. Many governments do not have the money to keep a massive well trained military in place. And some countries have been so screwed up that they have not had the chance to put together a decent force. A great example of a mercenary for is Executive Outcomes- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Outcomes

farson135:

Arguement against privatization of Healthcare: When you earn your money from people dying or being sick, you sure as hell have an interest in prolonging the ammount of time they pay you, and how many people are in need of your treatments. Soceity wants less sick/dying people, but private hospitals have a general interest in having more of them.

Then change the system to such that they make money from curing people. You know, actually allow competition. The best hospitals will be the ones that treat you quickly and effectively and those will be the ones that most people go to.

To be frank the guy you quoted is DEAD wrong. Currently healthcare makes LESS money the more sick people there are. But to properly prevent sickness in a population takes a massive financial investment that would also assist any competitors. Wheres the motivation to do that?

Change it how? This is a very vague answer, im gonna go ahead and assume thats because you didnt think it through very well. Let me expand.

You know whats super expensive? Dialysis machines, radiotherapy, trained professionals, x ray machines, breathing apparatus, cleaning and caring for a bed bound patient, 24/7 nursing staff to do the previous job, the latest drugs, brain scans and intricate surgical apparatus that needs replacing often. You know who needs those things? Sick people you are treating. You know who DOESNT need those things? People who are not sick or sick people you avoid treating.

One way to make the system make profit is to charge a ridiculous amount for each service when you need it. But no one is going to do that because treatment could be upwards of 200,000 dollars for cancer at a conservative estimate so your business will only cater to the super rich who can afford to save such a large lump sum all at once. Or you could charge monthly when a person is well and only pay out these horrendous expenses when sick for no extra cost on their end. But now you have the same motivation to withhold these massive expensive treatments because they are literally your only expense and keeping that person on your coverage is making you money. Even if they die you would make more money on the few years they lived than you would treating them and letting them live a long life. Its a massive loss for the company to do so. Which to be frank is disgusting and not a good motivator. People who have a low chance for survival but a ludicrously expensive treatment are sitting on the sheet marked "Definite expense". These people should be treated anyway.

This is why i support state run healthcare for most and private for those who can ACTUALLY cover the upfront costs of these treatments. A state run healthcare system can make horrendous losses and be subsidized by taxes and other government ventures that do turn profit. It can also easily coordinate statewide vaccinations and has good motivation to do so since it now wont be aiding the competition, it covers the entire state so if the population benefits the government benefits. It can make the attempt to save a very risky persons life at monetary cost and not think twice because that loss is less meaningful to a government that doesnt mind making the money elsewhere than to a business whose whole aim is to make money. Its failures are also fully accountable and subject to the rules of democracy, a government promising to reform or improve the system will naturally get more votes in that area. Its been a subject of importance in the UK in the last few elections for sure. The CEO of a company isnt as accountable as an elected official. The CEO has power from money while the official has power from election. One is significantly easier to remove than the other.

BiscuitTrouser:
Change it how? This is a very vague answer, im gonna go ahead and assume thats because you didnt think it through very well.

No, it is because there are lots of answers and I do not care enough to expand unless someone is actually interested.

One method I have heard is taking those expensive machines mobile and having hospitals pool their resources. Or, allow them to cut down on specialization in certain areas while increase specialization in others (shifting personnel to make things more efficient). Cut down on overhead. Etc. There are all kinds of methods prescribed by people who actually care about the health care system. Frankly, all systems suck and that includes your system. No one has figured out a great way to do it. I put more faith in the free market to figure out a better way to do things than I put in the same government that decided that bombing innocent civilians is simple collateral damage, stuffing prisons with non-violent offenders will make us safer, and that plastic bags are the devil. Your guys are immoral. The market does not need morals and as such it looks to increase services while increasing efficiency.

The CEO of a company isnt as accountable as an elected official. The CEO has power from money while the official has power from election. One is significantly easier to remove than the other.

Because y'all have created a system that insulates them. How about this, stop doing that.

Privatization has the distinct advantage of not being the government, so when they do need to be slapped, the government should be there with a dueling glove.

When the government plays the game and makes the rules, well, sure, they are still there to serve. Oh, did you mean serve you?

AgedGrunt:
Privatization has the distinct advantage of not being the government, so when they do need to be slapped, the government should be there with a dueling glove.

As argued before, elected officials performing badly can be punished by not simply re-electing them. CEO's have to be punished by a power outside the voters control, a power which is -very- lenient in the countries where privatization is the biggest problem. Barring Japan, there's an awful tendency of these people actually getting rewarded for performing badly. Go figure.

The Government has the distinct advantage of not having to turn a profit, something which will always be the goal of any private entity. Treatment can be acquired and given for a lower cost than otherwise possible, hence why treatment of patients is cheaper in the countries with universal healthcare, and more expensive in those without.

BiscuitTrouser:
The person I refrained from quoting is dead wrong!

Doctors paid per prescribed piece of medicine tends to prescribe more medicine. He gets paid for that because his employer has to sell medicine, whether people need it or not. Resulting in the many cases we've heard of where Doctors prescribe medicine with dozens of side-effect and then prescribes more medicine to deal with said side-effects, rather than give an alternative with fewer side-effects.

-That- is one of the many flaws of a system with privatized Healthcare. In a System where the doctor merely got his pay for, doing his job. He would only prescribe the medicine his patient required.

Nikolaz72:

BiscuitTrouser:
The person I refrained from quoting is dead wrong!

Doctors paid per prescribed piece of medicine tends to prescribe more medicine. He gets paid for that because his employer has to sell medicine, whether people need it or not. Resulting in the many cases we've heard of where Doctors prescribe medicine with dozens of side-effect and then prescribes more medicine to deal with said side-effects, rather than give an alternative with fewer side-effects.

-That- is one of the many flaws of a system with privatized Healthcare. In a System where the doctor merely got his pay for, doing his job. He would only prescribe the medicine his patient required.

See no system, as far as im aware, functions like that. Like i said medicines are too expensive for anyone but the rich to afford upfront. So a system of annual fees and coverage makes it available for most. The companies lose money to give away medicine since health insurance functions like all other insurance. The company payout happens when you need help. Your payout happens when you dont.

Thats how it works in the US and other privitised countries. Its how it also works in the UK private hospitals. Only in dentistry do you pay upfront and thats for single cosmetic procedures. The upfront and selling medicine is only for cosmetic companies who DO get paid upfront. In those cases yes you have a point. However for life saving and neccessary medical care the insurance system is used in ALL private cases as far as im aware.

The issue isnt the overuse of medicine, the issue is the under use. What you DO have a point for is tests actually. Tests cost the hospital nothing to give except for buying the machine itself (unlike treatments and medicine) and can cost insurance companies a LOT of money to pay a hospital for. Unnecessary scans and testing can be an issue. Medicinal treatment? Not so much.

farson135:

No, it is because there are lots of answers and I do not care enough to expand unless someone is actually interested.

One method I have heard is taking those expensive machines mobile and having hospitals pool their resources.

Aren't you arguing for Hospitals being privatized, and thus run by private corporations. Why would they want to pool their resources together if they're competing against one another? After all, helping people isn't a doctor's duty, making money is, at least in a private system.

Or, allow them to cut down on specialization in certain areas while increase specialization in others (shifting personnel to make things more efficient).

That could help... If it weren't for the fact that the cost of medical school is astronomical. Trying to tell someone who's hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt that he'll have to take a less well paying, more "generic" job when they trained to be, for example, a heart surgeon or a nurse is not going to sit well with them. You need to remember, that short of working as a janitor, nearly every position in a hospital requires a college education, a frequently very expensive college education.

Cut down on overhead. Etc. There are all kinds of methods prescribed by people who actually care about the health care system. Frankly, all systems suck and that includes your system. No one has figured out a great way to do it.

At least in a Socialized health care system, you don't have companies dropping the sick for "Pre-Existing Conditions". At least in a socialized system, you don't have companies spend millions in ad revenue to scare you into buying their insurance, then drop you when you need it the most. At least in a socialized system, you don't have companies whose job is supposed to be easing the costs of health coverage, spend all their time trying to figure out a way to legally not pay for your healthcare costs. There may not be a perfect system, but socialized medicine is pretty damn close to it.

I put more faith in the free market to figure out a better way to do things than I put in the same government that decided that bombing innocent civilians is simple collateral damage, stuffing prisons with non-violent offenders will make us safer, and that plastic bags are the devil.

First off, many judges have been reported as taking from the till of private companies to stuff those non-violent offenders in prison.

I put more faith in the government to serve it's citizens, than I put in the free market that considers lives of others to be "expendable", that considers polluting the environment as acceptable collateral damage, that installs dictatorships for profit, that suppresses unions,that blackmails, bullies, and beats anyone that opposes them, that leave people to starve to keep a profit margin, that cause so much misery to so many people, then sit back and promote some half-assed concept as business contracts being "sacred" or industrialists being "heroes".

Your guys are immoral. The market does not need morals and as such it looks to increase services while increasing efficiency.

That goes fundamentally against the very precepts of capitalism. The market looks to increase profit, decrease costs (to themselves), and lessen the need to expand.

If companies were all about increasing services and efficiency, we would see a completely different U.S., California wasn't always the center of American "Car Culture" after all, in fact right around the time American automobiles were just hitting the market, they were failing. They were expensive, created pollution, and overall seen as inefficient. Instead, the majority of transportation in cities was done by rail, tram cars were clean, smooth, and they were inexpensive. Did the companies try to prove themselves as more "efficient" when facing this stiff competition? No. Instead they bought up all the rail they could and destroyed California's transportation infrastructure so people would be forced into purchasing their goods.

The free market would starve a nation, just to increase the price of food while the costs remained the same. It can not, and should not be left to itself.

Because y'all have created a system that insulates them. How about this, stop doing that.

I hardly see the lessening of regulations and how overall making a CEO less accountable will somehow make him more accountable.

I keep my opinion simple, and go as such.

Things that everyone needs - food, shelter, law enforcement, disaster relief, water, air, healthcare, toilets - should never, ever be privatized; we should run those on a societal consensus. Same goes for things that benefit humanity as a whole, such as scientific research.

Luxury non-necessities? Hey, privatize the hell out of that if you want, there's so many of those services there's not enough hours in a day to be dependent on them all, so I'll just pick the ones I consider are run well.

Witty Name Here:
Why would they want to pool their resources together if they're competing against one another? After all, helping people isn't a doctor's duty, making money is, at least in a private system.

Because it save all of them money.

That could help... If it weren't for the fact that the cost of medical school is astronomical. Trying to tell someone who's hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt that he'll have to take a less well paying, more "generic" job when they trained to be, for example, a heart surgeon or a nurse is not going to sit well with them. You need to remember, that short of working as a janitor, nearly every position in a hospital requires a college education, a frequently very expensive college education.

And you need all of those people to be in one place because?

At least in a Socialized health care system, you don't have companies dropping the sick for "Pre-Existing Conditions".

Which happens because we distort the market so that other companies cannot get in and make a profit.

At least in a socialized system, you don't have companies whose job is supposed to be easing the costs of health coverage, spend all their time trying to figure out a way to legally not pay for your healthcare costs.

Because you guys mix socialism and capitalism so much that it becomes an entirely different system. You put up the government overhead and make them in charge or morality, then you leave the companies to do what they will without any consequences.

This is the system people like you built. Don't get pissy at me when it crashes down on you.

First off, many judges have been reported as taking from the till of private companies to stuff those non-violent offenders in prison.

Which is why you need to separate government and business. Y'all need to stop supporting government and business coming together.

I put more faith in the government to serve it's citizens than I put in the free market that considers lives of others to be "expendable"

The government does exactly that. Business does not.

that considers polluting the environment as acceptable collateral damage

Because you do not put incentives for them to stop. Another example of why government should not be involved in business.

that suppresses unions

That would be the government.

that blackmails, bullies, and beats anyone that opposes them

That would also be the government.

that cause so much misery to so many people

That would also be the government.

then sit back and promote some half-assed concept as business contracts being "sacred" or industrialists being "heroes".

How about promoting a half-ass concept of government coming to liberate the people.

market looks to increase profit, decrease costs (to themselves), and lessen the need to expand.

Which is what I said.

If companies were all about increasing services and efficiency, we would see a completely different U.S.

The US is not a capitalist society.

California wasn't always the center of American "Car Culture" after all, in fact right around the time American automobiles were just hitting the market, they were failing. They were expensive, created pollution, and overall seen as inefficient. Instead, the majority of transportation in cities was done by rail, tram cars were clean, smooth, and they were inexpensive. Did the companies try to prove themselves as more "efficient" when facing this stiff competition? No. Instead they bought up all the rail they could and destroyed California's transportation infrastructure so people would be forced into purchasing their goods.

One, those tram cars are not as good as you say and the regular cars are far more efficient for most people.

BTW why didn't more rail companies come on line? Because the cities blocked their construction. The car companies would not have done anything to the other companies if another would simply rise up. Your anti-capitalist tendencies caused this problem.

The free market would starve a nation, just to increase the price of food while the costs remained the same.

No it would not. After all, you cannot sell if no one buys.

I hardly see the lessening of regulations and how overall making a CEO less accountable will somehow make him more accountable.

You guys created corporations. Corporations are anti-capitalist. In fact, Jefferson fought tooth and nail AGAINST corporations. The legal use of corporations isolate owners from their mistakes. Corporations were originally founded (legally) in the Age of Imperialism as a way to increase the number of shareholders while making them less accountable to what happened in the colony.

farson135:
The market does not need morals and as such it looks to increase services while increasing efficiency.

Umm.

Sometimes that's the way the incentives work. Other times it isn't. To some extent it depends on how the property rights are managed-- which is already a matter that the market hasn't had any input in deciding.

For example, there is the market's failure to adequately deal with externality costs or benefits: those effects of a transaction which occur for people who are not parties to the transaction. Yes, people can make market decisions that affect others without those others having input into the decision. Astonishing. Air pollution is an example of this. Affects everyone. Deciding to buy and burn gasoline at whatever is the market price? Essentially one person's decision-- pretty easy to find a gas station in most places. He (or his close family or acquaintances) gets all of the benefit of using that gas and just as much of the environmental cost as everyone else. For him, the environmental price can easily be outweighed by the benefits. For everyone else, not so much. Of course, he is also the "everybody else" when it comes to other people using gasoline. And that there is what is called a collective action problem. It is rational to use gasoline, but also to want others not to do so. If deciding not to do so yourself meant that others would not do so as well, then there would be no (or at least much less of a) problem: you'd make the decision based on whether the total environmental cost of everyone acting like you is worth the benefit you get from acting as you do. But that is, of course, not how it works. The individual incentives don't match how people want everyone else to act-- even if all of them would be willing to cut their own use if they could be assured that it meant everyone else doing so. Game theorists analyze such decisions as the 'prisoner's dilemma'.

Theoretically you could solve pollution by bringing a class action lawsuit every time there is a pollutant added to the atmosphere (a perfectly plausible civil wrong)-- notice how even this isn't the market providing a solution to the problem: the courts are government intervention. Of course there is a much less wasteful way than endless lawsuits: a predictable and publicly acknowledged pollutant tax. Everyone is still free to burn as much gas as they want, but they have to pay a price that takes into account the (relatively modest, in the individual case) harm inflicted upon others.

BiscuitTrouser:

Nikolaz72:

BiscuitTrouser:
The person I refrained from quoting is dead wrong!

Doctors paid per prescribed piece of medicine tends to prescribe more medicine. He gets paid for that because his employer has to sell medicine, whether people need it or not. Resulting in the many cases we've heard of where Doctors prescribe medicine with dozens of side-effect and then prescribes more medicine to deal with said side-effects, rather than give an alternative with fewer side-effects.

-That- is one of the many flaws of a system with privatized Healthcare. In a System where the doctor merely got his pay for, doing his job. He would only prescribe the medicine his patient required.

medicines are too expensive for anyone

Simply not so. Take a look at your nearest Pharmacy, ask yourself if they are selling everything at a loss.

Hint: Answer's No.

Take a look into the back of the Pharmacy, to all the Prescribed medicine, ask yourself if they are selling all of that at a loss.

Hint: Answer's No.

Treatment might be expensive, certain medicine is also expensive. But you kid yourself if you for half a second thinks that the business of making medicine is barren.

The two of the largest markets are anti-depressants and painkillers. And one of those is prescribed. And they most likely not considered cosmetic products by any meaning of the word.

In the UK we've had decades of privatisation thanks to the paradigm shift in political policies following the leadership of Margaret Judas Beelzebub Thatcher. Even now we're having the NHS and our schools privatised, with massive warning signals that this is a bad idea at every turn like Lansley and the "most transparent government ever" refusing to publish the risk register showing the dangers of his policies while at the same time a report was published showing the UK has one of the most efficient health systemas in the world (http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2011/08/07/JRSMpaperPritWall.pdf) which directly undermines the government's argument for these radical right-wing changes.

But that's not so much what I want to talk about, because although it is really important if you're from the UK and pay attention to the news then you'll likely already know about it and concur that these changes are a tumour.

What I want to talk about is the privatisation of yesteryear, the ones that have already been swept through and we have been living with for years or decades.

Railways

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1045235402001879
http://www.ontla.on.ca/library/repository/mon/2000/10296250.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0084.1995.mp57003006.x/abstract
http://www.kouvola.lut.fi/files/download/Tutkimusraportti169_OP_B.pdf

Sample quote from the above studies: "Generally all of the analyzed literature from UK railway sector considers (see Table 2) that railway deregulation as a major failure, and identifies that market forces are just too short-term oriented, as social implications and replacement investments are needed to be considered through longer-term perspective. Numerous different reasons are mentioned; mostly market forces are experienced to be too crude for complex and fragmented transportation system, which European railway typically represents."

Railways are the area where it is probably clearest that privatisation has completely failed. Already one of the most efficient rail networks in the world when it was privatised although suffering from lack of funding, British Rail now lags behind the rest of the continent by almost every metric. For instance privatisation was supposed to keep ticket prices low at RPI-1 (RPI being a measure of inflation), but had to instead be limited to RPI+1 and are now being upped to RPI+3. Government subsidies are now ten times higher than they were (5 times accounting for inflation, I believe)

One of the reasons that even hard-core right-wingers have to sometimes admit that privatisation of the railways doesn't work is that there are just too many monopolies involved. It's way too expensive for there to be competing rail networks and the company responsible for the Uk network, Railtrack, had to essentially be nationalised and turned into Network Rail after a series of disasters like the hatfield train crash showed how inept the privatised alternative was.

Then the train operating companies have monopolies over sections of the network because there is only a limited amount of space. The fabled competition never has a chance because there isn't competition, just different monopolies in different regions. This has also eroded the formerly integrated service, with rail companies applying for the most beneficial contracts possible and then rigorously enforcing them. For instance Virgin West Coast got a ban on anyone competing with them, which meant other services like First North western pulled the plug on a lot of their trains as they're be unable to collect or set down passengers at big stations which were now Virgin exclusive. Competing companies are often outright banned from stopping trains at cities in this manner and it means connections which are socially beneficial and profitable (Supposedly the driving motivator in free-market reform) aren't run because they're profitable for a competitor of the company which makes the decision of whether or not they happen.

Then there's even more monopolies as in essence the train operating companies have to take whatever the Rolling Stock Leasing Companies offer. Due to the fragmentation of the rail network with some places being electrified and some not, some being at a cant which stops some trains from operating and some not, etc, there are all types of different trains required all over the country that the Train Operating Companies have little choice but to shut up and accept what they are offered.

Combine all this with the captive market, because if you're using the train then often driving or taking a bus isn't an option, and you have a recipe for disaster as companies fail to compete with each other to drive down costs, but do compete so see who gets the most lucrative monopolies so they can exploit ordinary people.

I'll leave you with the McNulty report, a review from a little while back into the rail industry. If you have a look through it (http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/report-of-the-rail-vfm-study/realising-the-potential-of-gb-rail.pdf) then make sure to read it in detail because the summary and conclusion have little detail to the body of the report. If I could work out how to C&P from protected PDFs I'd cut out the juicy bits here for you, but sadly I can't. It also ignored evidence from individual reports which were commissioned to provide info for the overall McNulty report, such as the Arup review of rollign stock (http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/rvfm-arup-rolling-stock-mar2011.pdf) which sets out how an independent regulator is needed to deal withthe problems that the free-market has caused.

Energy

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mde.4090160305/abstract
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/030142159290109F
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361368211001152

Also a nice essay http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n17/james-meek/how-we-happened-to-sell-off-our-electricity which I especially like because it makes a claim I haven't heard before that Hitler invented privitisation, which is so good I am choosing to believe it without any further proof:

"Privatisation was not a Thatcher patent. The Spanish economist Germà Bel traces the origins of the word to the German word Reprivatisierung, first used in English in 1936 by the Berlin correspondent of the Economist, writing about Nazi economic policy. In 1943, in an analysis of Hitler's programme in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, the word 'privatisation' entered the academic literature for the first time. The author, Sidney Merlin, wrote that the Nazi Party 'facilitates the accumulation of private fortunes and industrial empires by its foremost members and collaborators through "privatisation" and other measures, thereby intensifying centralisation of economic affairs and government in an increasingly narrow group that may for all practical purposes be termed the national socialist elite'."

But we have a very similar situation in the UK now, which perhaps isn't quite as bad but is eminently more laughable, where because the state supposedly can't run the energy sector properly it has been sold off to foreign companies like the state-owned French EDF who now rakes in profit off of the UK energy market.

The problems with privatised energy are less unanimously decried, except in developing countries where the consensus seems to be clear that energy is a matter for the state, but the dangers are there all the same. Perhaps the biggest one is that market forces are vulnerable to booms and busts and can go broke. When the market is the energy for your entire country, going bust isn't a good option which is why since privatisation the government has had to step in to stop the industry collapsing in 2002 when the rise of natural gas meant coal and nuclear stations were in danger of closing down and leaving the country without energy.

It has also not helped us with energy prices either, putting us directly in the middle of the EU chart for energy costs. The only way renewable energy is getting pushed is with massive government subsidies that were so extravagant the government tried to back out of them early, only for a court to rule that would be a breach of their contract.

This is just two examples, but I could go on about the privitisation of water (http://www.ontla.on.ca/library/repository/mon/2000/10296250.pdf) or start hammering away at current efforts at privitisation. However but the point I'd like to focus on is how in some circumstances privitisation is just plain bad. British Rail offered an incredible service and was incredibly efficient, being hampered if anything by a lack of funding and the way funding was granted to it (being hard to plan a massive 10 year infrastructure project when you are only given a specific budget for 12 months). The Central Electricity Generating Board was a bit of a dinosaur with some serious faults and was in need of reform, but all privatisation has done is replaced it with different but much greater faults.

The problem is that even theoretically, market forces aren't supposed to work very well in these situations. It is private companies being given ready-made monopolies over important sectors of the economy and unfettered access to consumers who have to purchase their goods. I can't see any argument for these free-market solutions that haven't been comprehensively blown out of the water by decades of mismanagement.

We need to support the nationalisation of these industries and a stop to the continued exploitation of vital parts of the UK. This is a process which is being rushed through without any reflection by government on whether the same thing that will happen to all the other parts of the economy that got privatised will be repeated in education and health.

Nikolaz72:

Simply not so. Take a look at your nearest Pharmacy, ask yourself if they are selling everything at a loss.

Hint: Answer's No.

Take a look into the back of the Pharmacy, to all the Prescribed medicine, ask yourself if they are selling all of that at a loss.

Hint: Answer's No.

Treatment might be expensive, certain medicine is also expensive. But you kid yourself if you for half a second thinks that the business of making medicine is barren.

The two of the largest markets are anti-depressants and painkillers. And one of those is prescribed. And they most likely not considered cosmetic products by any meaning of the word.

Over the counter medicines are VERY seperate thing to hopsital treatments which was what i was referencing in my post. Youve referenced pharmacies selling generic brand pills and treatments. Thats nothing to do with hospitals at all, since the money goes from either you or your company to the pharmacy and you receive drugs. When im talking about treatment i mean ones where the hospital is a player. The reason the pharmacy doesnt make a loss is because they sell selectively the drugs that apply to a large portion of the population, arnt incredibly specific in dosage, and dont require professional help to administer. THATS a market. Aside from anti biotics (which over the counter are pretty broad in target and dosage and most of the time are used to speed up treatment of something non life threatening) its not, in my opinion, the most important medicine which is why in this example im disregarding it. You rarely purchase life saving medicine at your local pharmacy unless youre diabetic. Its not the important factor when discussing the efficiency of the medical system because pharmacies just dont incur the same costs as hospitals.

Drugs that definitely WONT make money are the expensive life saving ones that are ultra specific to a tiny portion of the population, differ massively depending on the persons internal biology and have a very specific dosage. They also require very niche research to develop. These are the treatments that matter. You cant mass sell these. They WILL cost you money. A lot of money. A pharmacy is very different to a hospital since its pretty much focused entirely on drugs that can and do reach a mass market. If a pharmacy COULD sell hospital treatments for profit why wouldnt it? They cant. What they sell now are the fairly broad and unnecessary drugs. Anything cheap and easy enough to mass produce in a factory and package is already in a pharmacy.

I think outside of what a pharmacy sells already, simple medicines any idiot can use correctly, the medicinal industry IS rather barren. Things like niche cancer treatments are not financially viable because your market is small and individual treatment cost is VERY high. A lot of broad mass produced medicines for the general population are viable, which was not what i was trying to say when I referenced treatment. Im talking strictly hospital/patient/insurance company interaction.

Youre right there is a market for some medicines, so yeah i agree its not entirely Barron and I wont claim it is. Im just saying there definitely ISNT a market for the most essential medicines that require trained staff to use. And since the market cant cover the entire industry effectively i dont think its a good system to depend on.

The reason they are not comparable, the pharmacy and the hospital is the pharmaceutical companies can afford to pick and choose what treatments to provide, only providing those that turn profits. Thats why they work. Anything too expensive is cut. The hospital doesnt have that power. It should provide ALL treatments, even those that are extremely expensive. It cant afford to pick and choose what is provided based on price since lives are at stake. The pharmacy picks available medicine out based on cost and return and sticks with what works. The hospital provides available medicine which is a mixed bag of fruit.

Nikolaz72:
As argued before, elected officials performing badly can be punished by not simply re-electing them. CEO's have to be punished by a power outside the voters control, a power which is -very- lenient in the countries where privatization is the biggest problem. Barring Japan, there's an awful tendency of these people actually getting rewarded for performing badly. Go figure.

Nothing is simple about politics, especially when the seats of government hold concentrated power, which is exactly what State-control delivers. And CEO's are punished all the time for poor performance, but if they do a good job, investors and boards are happy, there's nothing to argue that they should be sacked unless the law has been broken. Speaking of the law, that's the government's business.

In other words, as long as a CEO isn't doing anything illegal, why punish them? Would you want the CEOs to make their own regulations? No? Then why let the government make rules for itself? Because people trust their votes? That's working out well for the modern world...

Nikolaz72:
The Government has the distinct advantage of not having to turn a profit, something which will always be the goal of any private entity. Treatment can be acquired and given for a lower cost than otherwise possible, hence why treatment of patients is cheaper in the countries with universal healthcare, and more expensive in those without.

It has the distinct advantage of not making any money. It takes it by force or prints it. The people pay for it all one way or another without choice, regardless of how much treatment they require (if any).

AgedGrunt:
Snip

Governments interests lie in improving the economy of the country, it improves by people being able to spend money buying various goods, if a private establishments owns hospitals it has to turn a profit and as such the treatments become more expensive, it has to.

If the Governments own it, treatment can be given for the cost of the personnel and medicine. Therefor it becomes cheaper, not even typically. Just factually, it becomes cheaper. I'm a student and have more money to spend than the average same-as US comparison, I was born to the lower class, if I lived over there I'd be neckdeep in debt due to having to pay for both higher education and a chronic illness.

Yet, for some reason I and my parents, despite lower income. Have it pretty damn well, you might argue that the upperclass here has less money to spend than the American upperclass. But if the conditions of the majority (Middle/Lowerclass buttom 90%) improves at the cost of the minority (Upperclass top 10%) and the country in question is still ranked the eighth most attractive place to start a business on earth? (Believe the U.S ranked lower)

I know the place in which these people have to suffer under the tyrannic fist of privatization of traditional government services has it wrong. Universal healthcare shouldn't be a perk, it should be a right. So should 'actual' available education.', not just (Sometimes available if you are lucky)

Private Hospitals: People pay for expensive insurance, still has to pay for certain treatments if they only have a standard one. Those in favor cheer at the thought of leaving the uninsured masses to dig their own graves.

Universal Healthcare: No need for insurance, a bit higher taxes, no-one gets left out to die.

AgedGrunt:

Nothing is simple about politics, especially when the seats of government hold concentrated power, which is exactly what State-control delivers. And CEO's are punished all the time for poor performance, but if they do a good job, investors and boards are happy, there's nothing to argue that they should be sacked unless the law has been broken. Speaking of the law, that's the government's business.

In other words, as long as a CEO isn't doing anything illegal, why punish them? Would you want the CEOs to make their own regulations? No? Then why let the government make rules for itself? Because people trust their votes? That's working out well for the modern world...

A CEO is only interested in money, not ethics. Any number of ethics scandals, hell even just the fact that people freeze to death over winter while their utility provider posts profits over a billion pounds, should tell you that if companies want more money and they can get away with it, a little thing like morals isn't going to get in the way.

And that's all the board cares about. Are they going to be happier with a CEO who says their profits might be low but they are polled as 'excellent' in all important areas or a CEO who says that they are polled as 'fine' but have record profits?

We can't change CEO because we disagree with their business practices and in areas that form natural monopolies (e.g. railways) you can't even get the choice to change provider.

At least with government we get the option of getting rid of the bosses if we don't like the business practice, even if they do make a profit.

In my view Government is good at a few things, like large and not exactly profitable projects such as infrastructure, anything to do with Security and Law, and trying to uphold the public good. However, government is typically not very good at fostering innovation or making things cost effective. Its for this reason I am not so on board with Government run health care and science programs. Now, government certainly has a place. Things that are not really that profitable or extremely expensive like the Human Genome Project or Space...anything will probably always have a place for government. Finding that appropriate level is the key.

AgedGrunt:
And CEO's are punished all the time for poor performance, but if they do a good job, investors and boards are happy, there's nothing to argue that they should be sacked unless the law has been broken.

Senior level employees are paid comparatively 10 times more than they were 50 years ago, despite getting smaller results. In absolute terms, senior level employees in the most free-market companies are paid 20 times more than their counterparts in similarly large and profitible businesses in other parts of the world.

Rich Capitalists are getting rewarded for poor results, not punished.

In other words, as long as a CEO isn't doing anything illegal, why punish them? Would you want the CEOs to make their own regulations? No? Then why let the government make rules for itself? Because people trust their votes? That's working out well for the modern world...

Because illiegality isn't the only yardstick. Social benefit, economic benefit, morality and various other concerns all come n as reasons why we shouldn't want people to benefit off ineptitude and cronyism.

Also, most of the governments of the world are incredibly free-market and allow businesses heavy involvement in the writing of business related law. Take for instance how the tax firms in the UK were recently revealed to have helped write Uk tax law, then made money on showing clients how to avoid those laws.

It has the distinct advantage of not making any money. It takes it by force or prints it. The people pay for it all one way or another without choice, regardless of how much treatment they require (if any).

There's no reason governments can't make money, it's just the obvious way (nationalised state factories and other obviously productive industries) is out of fashion and the other way which is still in place in many countries (Like the NHS) isn't obviously profitable and you have to have a bit of a sit and think about how stopping people from dying is economically beneficial.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here